Time for a New Political Party in Scotland?

I think the time is now right for a new political party to be formed in Scotland. This new party should be distinctively Scottish, unashamedly Unionist, a champion of personal liberty and offer a centre-right alternative to the left wing hegemony in Scotland. This principled stance would place the party in stark contrast to the SNP which is nationalist of course, with deeply authoritarian tendencies, and appears now to be firmly entrenched on the political left (more for expedience than principle).

In my view this new party should replace the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats north of the border, and these old parties should be disbanded. A number of Labour supporters might also be attracted to a party that puts the Union front and centre of its thinking on constitutional matters.

The new party would need a new name of course as part of a new identity. "The Unionist Party of Scotland" sounds like a good name to me and has strong echoes of the pre-1965 "Unionist Party" which was the name of the old, independent Scottish party of conservatism before it was subsumed into the UK Conservative Party. The pre-1965 Unionist Party is still the only party to gain more than 50% of the vote in Scotland (at the 1955 election) even after the 2015 general election's seismic event.

In the wake of the general election results in Scotland, in which the Scottish National Party gained 56 out of 59 seats (95% of seats) on the basis of just shy of 50% of the vote, I think the time is right for a fundamental re-alignment in Scottish politics and the formation of a new political party to replace some of the ineffective parties we have at the moment. This re-alignment is in the national interest, if for no other reason than to prevent the country becoming effectively a nationalist fiefdom in terms of its elected representatives.

As a result of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, it is clear that the minority 45% who voted "Yes" have largely coalesced around the SNP, while the 55% majority vote is split among Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, with probably a few also switching directly to voting SNP this time. This gives the SNP a massive electoral advantage. As has been pointed out, in a two-way referendum question, 45% is a fairly large defeat; but in a general election 45% of the vote will produce a big win in a three or four party system. (Of course the SNP went even beyond this figure in the general election getting close to 50% of the vote, albeit on a reduced turnout.)

Although this will probably be the high water mark of SNP support (though recent polls suggest support may even have increased since the General Election), I certainly do not foresee their share of the vote dropping below say 40% nationally in the next 5–10 years.

At the present time, the unionist vote is split at least three ways, with the Labour Party currently gaining about 25% support, the Conservative Party on around 15% support and the Liberal Democrats bottoming out at around 5%.

In my view, the "Conservative" or "Tory" brand is finished in Scotland, being irredeemably tainted by association with the hated Thatcher government in the 1980s. This does not mean that centre right politics have nothing to offer the Scottish people. With a good leader in Ruth Davidson and other decent parliamentarians like Murdo Fraser, the problem with the Scottish Conservatives is not people, but the toxic branding of the party.

The time is right to decide where conservatism goes in the future. In my view they have two options. The current Conservative Party can carry on as is, gaining around 15% of the vote, splitting the Unionist vote and being the third or fourth party in Holyrood while returning 1 or 2 MPs to Westminster. Or it can seek to break with the past (a hard thing for conservatives to do admittedly) and seek to take centre right politics forward in a new way in Scotland.

If, God forbid, in the future Scotland ends up as the high tax, high public spending, authoritarian socialist utopia of SNP dreams, the need for a realistic alternative to the left wing hegemony will only become greater in future years. But such is the visceral reaction against the Tories for many Scots that the case for achieving desired objectives for a good society by non-socialist means cannot properly be presented to the people for them to consider on merit.

For other reasons, the Liberal Democrats also look like a spent force. They really offer nothing distinctive from what is already found in either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party and any caché from being "not Labour" in Conservative areas and "not Conservative" in Labour areas has been blown away, probably for good. In addition, the core liberal commitment to personal freedom is equally shared by the other Unionist parties, particularly by modern, moderate conservatives.

The Labour party is in a different position. Their long term future still remains in doubt. In five years' time, if you add 10% on the Labour vote and deduct 10% off the SNP, then you are looking at Labour on 35% and SNP on 40% with everything to play for. Perhaps, but perhaps not. It is simply not yet clear whether the 2015 election was merely a deep hole from which Labour can bounce back or whether it was an indicator of terminal decline. The fact is that apart from constitutional issues, there is little difference politically between the SNP and Labour anyway. The two leading parties are both vying for more or less the same spot on the political spectrum. It is inconceivable at the moment to imagine a merger between Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives as they have fundamental differences that run deeper than their agreement that Scotland should be part of the United Kingdom. So this new party will not include Labour, though it may attract Labour members and many "Labour" voters. But a strong Unionist Party would offer a clear choice to the electorate, being distinct from what Labour and the SNP offer.

So what does the new party need in order to succeed? I would suggest the following four elements would be a good start.

1. The Party must be independently Scottish

At the moment the unionist parties in Scotland are perceived as being the Scottish "branch offices" of English parties. This needs to be changed in principle and in practice. The new party must be inherently Scottish in identity. Its first duty must be to Scotland and the Scottish people and it must be a wholly independent entity from any party in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It should seek election to local councils in Scotland, to the Scottish Parliament as a potential Scottish government or coalition partner, and to the United Kingdom Parliament as a separate political party representing Scottish unionists. This means the party will have its own policies and agendas that do no necessarily align with English parties, and though it may forge alliances with other parties, it will never place any partnership with others above its solemn covenant with the Scottish people.

Such a move would allow the party to make a serious challenge to the SNP's mantra that only it somehow represents the best interests of the Scottish people or has the right to the mantle of Scottish patriotism, both of which seem to have had quite a bit of traction in the public mind. I believe this alone would take a significant bite out of the SNP vote, especially in rural Scotland.

A Scottish moderate centre-right party would likely be an ally of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons, but it should not take the Tory whip and always remain an independent bloc of MPs within Parliament. A Conservative government in the UK would find friends in this new party and could likely rely on its support on many issues, but could not depend on unconditional support. Good Scottish friends would still be free to offer constructive criticism or disagreement where needed.

2. The Party must be staunchly Unionist

The new party should position itself as a unabashed defender of the Union with the rest of the United Kingdom because the Union has always been and always will be in Scotland's best interests. Modern unionism has to move beyond defending the status quo, even though the strength the Union has been shown time and again over the past 300 years, and go on the attack to promote the Union in Scotland and champion a permanent federal settlement between the four nations of the UK. The party should aim to be the "natural home" of the majority "No" voters in the referendum in 2014.

A positive future for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom would be one of the main ideological divides between the new party and the SNP.

Within a federal UK, each constituent nation should have a high level of economic and social autonomy, while pooling resources where this is deemed to be advantageous. Foreign affairs and defence would be the two most obvious areas for the federal government, but some tax and benefits may also best be organised at the British level.

Emphasising the need for a strong union that is elastic enough to allow the four nations to do things their own way is the best way to counter the narrowness of nationalism, which can only look increasingly outdated in a modern, globalised world.

3. The Party must be a champion of Liberty

One of the disturbing trends of the SNP government at Holyrood is how authoritarian its tendencies are. The SNP as a party of the left believes in the nanny state which will not only look after its citizens, but tell them how to live their lives and make sure they do so, backed up by the the State's power to punish non-conformity.

The prime example of this at the moment is the "Named Persons Scheme" whereby every child in Scotland will be appointed with a State Guardian to look after their interests. This guardian (most likely a health or education professional) will have sweeping powers that can be exercised without parental consent and even without parental knowledge.

The new party should be at the forefront of a campaign to keep the Scottish people free from the tyranny of the nanny state and lefty do-gooders in the SNP.

The new party should position itself as being on the side of the ordinary person and against the politically correct elites.

Similarly the party should oppose any future schemes to erode civil liberties such as attempts to abolish the need for corroboration in criminal law, any attempt to introduce compulsory ID cards, and so forth. The new party should champion traditional freedoms enjoyed by all the British people and oppose all moves which threaten freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of assembly.

For the SNP, the only "freedom" they value is the false freedom of independence from the rest of the United Kingdom. For the new party, "freedom" must first and foremost be championed for the people against a centralising, interfering State.

The principle for this stance is simple. Liberty is supremely valuable and needs to be defended. Lord Acton observed that "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." That should be the principle running through the new party like letters through seaside rock.

A strong stance on personal liberty against the power of the state would likely attract many liberal-minded Scots.

4. The Party must offer a moderate centre-right vision for Scotland

There is a "social democratic" consensus in Scottish politics. The two main parties in Scotland for the last 40 years are both centre-left parties (the SNP and Labour) which are in essential agreement on all political, economic and social issues, except for the question of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. Both essentially see the State as the great benefactor of the people and the solution to any problem confronting Scotland lying in higher taxation and public spending. Because of this, the parties of the left are willing to give the State almost limitless power and resources to achieve their objectives.

Scotland needs a voice that proclaims a different narrative and a different vision: a one-nation, moderate, centre-right political viewpoint. A voice that points out that the State is no more a guarantor of the common good that any other flawed human institution. A voice that stands up for the importance of non-State institutions that are also working for the common good, often better than the State, including most importantly: the family, churches and other faith groups, community groups, charities, businesses and many other non-state associations and organisations. A voice that points out that when the State becomes too big, rather than promoting the welfare of the nation, it gets in the way of the nation's welfare. A voice that challenges the consensus that high levels of taxation are automatically in the public interest.

In short, Scotland badly needs a political voice that offers a centre-right alternative to the left wing consensus. That voice cannot be the Conservative Party because too few Scots are willing to listen to it, often due to historical events and a collective recollection of how bad the 1980s were in much of Scotland's industrial heartland. Whether the recollection is fair and accurate or not is beside the point. A new voice is needed to give centre-right ideas a fair hearing, that the best way forward for the Scottish people, including the poorest in the country, lies in a small but efficient government, low taxation, a thriving economy, and maximum freedom for the individual consistent with social harmony and the common good. Scotland needs a party which stands up for traditional values and is proud of our past; a party which is wary of changing long-cherished institutions and values our Judeo-Christian heritage as the non-negotiable foundation of our way of life; a party which is pro-family, pro-business, and for ordinary working people; a party which is willing to look after the interests of rural Scotland and farming communities and protect the environment as a heritage for future generations.

Although the Conservative Party might be finished in Scotland this does not mean that conservatism (with a small c) should not have an important part to play in the future of Scottish politics. Indeed, if only to give a different point of view, such a voice is vital in a healthy, liberal democracy.

I think a new party with these principles and with policies to match them would be attractive to many Scots and could make a significant impact electorally on Scottish politics. I think it would likely garner almost all the current Scottish conservative vote, most of the Liberal Democrat vote (such as it is) and an increasing share from floating voters as they tire of SNP rhetoric and under achievement.

It is too late to change anything for the 2016 election, but looking ahead to the next General Election and next Scottish Parliament election after 2016, I am convinced this is where Scottish liberalism and Scottish conservatism needs to go.

The Politician's Dilemma

The current argument among the leaders of the Labour Party about whether they should back or oppose the Conservative plans on welfare reform poses a fundamental question for a democratic politician. Should you stick to your principles or listen to the electorate?

For readers who do not know the background to this, the Conservatives have just announced plans in their Budget to introduce cuts to several welfare programmes in the UK. The Labour Party is the party that traditionally supports the welfare state and would oppose such cuts which will be hard hitting on many of the poorest people in society.

The acting Labour leader, Harriet Harman, has suggested that Labour should not vote against the new measures and the reason she gives is that Labour has lost the argument over welfare reform - the Conservatives just won the general election.

I have to say that my first reaction to oppose Ms Harman's stance, not so much on the issue itself, but on the rationale given for it. (I am no great fan of the tax credits system and would favour root and branch reform of the entire tax and benefits system to something much simpler, much more efficient and more likely to help those in need - a national basic income - but that's another story.)

If someone, even a politician, believes in something - believes in a set of principles and policies that flow from those principles, why should they change their mind because the electorate did not back their party in the last election? The reasons why Labour lost the 2015 election are many, but I am willing to stick my neck out and say that Tory welfare reform proposals (which were kept deep and dark in the election campaign) is not one of them.

But suppose they were? Does that mean the losing party has to abandon their views and simply adopt what the winning party's platform was?

I didn't notice the SNP giving up on seeking independence after losing the referendum and nor should they. I didn't notice the Tories abandoning conservatism after losing three general elections in a row from 1997 to 2005. I don't think the Labour Party ought to abandon social democracy because of 2010 and 2015 either. Otherwise what is the point of the Labour Party? Just to be a nominal "alternative" to the Conservatives?

The electorate is never wrong they say. That is the nature of democracy. But does that mean a politician's principles should be blown around by whatever direction the electoral wind comes in? I don't think so. The problem with Labour last time was the leader wasn't liked and the party's programme wasn't a clear vision that the people could tap into. Both those problems can be sorted without abandoning Labour principles.